Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • On Gossip and Shunning

    by Vivek UpadhyayGOSSIP Gossip is a non-correspondent, warranty-free means of enhancing personal status through deploying and extrapolating upon selective information about the person being gossiped about. Through use of loaded statements, jokes, rash impressionistic judgments, etc. in a shared consensus often exhibiting “shared information bias” despite the demonstrable costs of this error, gossipers seek to obtain a non-correspondent and parasitic discount on interpersonal status relative to a subject gossiped about, in part, by circumventing the high cognitive requirements of engaging in constructive criticism (rather than loaded critique) which involves a truthful gauging of the gossip subject’s incentives to have said or done supposedly cost-imposing and investment worthiness-undermining things. Gossip also circumvents the fully correspondent comparison of interpersonal track records of transparently conducted, measurable, merit-based, productive and value-adding achievements and attempts thereof (which comprise some rudiments of a bottom line determining whether a person is distinctly worth investing in to complete a designated task or succession of tasks relative to other candidates in his/her task competitor pool). Gossip imposes gratuitous costs in (at least) two forms: i) via avoiding truthful, fully correspondent conversational language in the gossiping interlocutors conversations, thereby polluting the informational commons within their interpersonal dealings, which when exported elsewhere gradually expands outside of the scope of their interactions to lower interpersonal trust through producing gratuitous trust-establishing mechanisms in social interactions between interlocutors whose interpersonal economic velocity becomes susceptible to needless compromise, and ii) via rallying and shaming: eventually confronting the person gossiped about with loaded statements and questions instead of first seeking the incentives-based context of the gossiped about person’s purportedly (but not yet demonstrably) costly or varied capital investment-disincentivizing speech and actions. _____ SHUNNING (vaguely, an advice post – not written as carefully, just a provisional post in its imperfect form) Shunning is a cost-imposing behavior which fails to give a fully informed accounting of why one shuns the shunned. It imposes conduct boundaries upon the shunned within which the shunned must operate to maintain relations; these boundaries are non-correspondent transaction terms upon the shunned which reinforce the shunner’s loaded, non-correspondent interpretation of events (even if in shared consensus with another). What a shunner administers an unexplained test delivered without warranty that this test is even worth taking: ‘behave and speak as I want or I will deprive you of affection, instruction, resources, and the investment of other forms of capital’. It fails to register the behavioral and speech incentives of the shunned and thereby compromises the shunner’s reality-testing in favor of his/her intuited, discounted means to pressure the shunned into appeasing to the shunner’s preferences; preferences which are demonstrably or intuitively costly for the shunned). If someone shuns you, question their value in your life before you consider even asking for the context of their shunning. They provide nothing of unique value that you couldn’t get elsewhere at a mutually understood (comparable) discount between yourself and your non-shunning interlocutor? You confirm that through the non-intuitive convenience of their shunning, you incidentally gain peace and more capital with which to love and produce for those kin and kith in your trust, who do not demonstrate the imposition of such costs as shunning upon you? You lose nothing by leaving them *after* having tried to establish a non-loaded context-seeking for their shunning — if they are even worth *that* to begin with — to no avail, perhaps while receiving an accountability-avoiding, evasive answer? Yes? Then leave them while sharing that these newfound value additions must continually incentivize your non-interaction with them. After clarifying this simply leave them to their own devices. Leave them without any animosity. Make sure that if it’s ever in your interests to rekindle dealings with them, you can do so without having the stain of a cost-imposing attack — that is, a critique not based on a criticism of someone’s alterable choices and/or virtues — inject gratuitous costs into your attempts to re-establish a connection in which the both of you can either exclusively add value to the lives of one another, according to voluntary and mutually established communicative terms which do not impose costs upon your family and friends, or choose to simply not interact in a given instance.

  • On Gossip and Shunning

    by Vivek UpadhyayGOSSIP Gossip is a non-correspondent, warranty-free means of enhancing personal status through deploying and extrapolating upon selective information about the person being gossiped about. Through use of loaded statements, jokes, rash impressionistic judgments, etc. in a shared consensus often exhibiting “shared information bias” despite the demonstrable costs of this error, gossipers seek to obtain a non-correspondent and parasitic discount on interpersonal status relative to a subject gossiped about, in part, by circumventing the high cognitive requirements of engaging in constructive criticism (rather than loaded critique) which involves a truthful gauging of the gossip subject’s incentives to have said or done supposedly cost-imposing and investment worthiness-undermining things. Gossip also circumvents the fully correspondent comparison of interpersonal track records of transparently conducted, measurable, merit-based, productive and value-adding achievements and attempts thereof (which comprise some rudiments of a bottom line determining whether a person is distinctly worth investing in to complete a designated task or succession of tasks relative to other candidates in his/her task competitor pool). Gossip imposes gratuitous costs in (at least) two forms: i) via avoiding truthful, fully correspondent conversational language in the gossiping interlocutors conversations, thereby polluting the informational commons within their interpersonal dealings, which when exported elsewhere gradually expands outside of the scope of their interactions to lower interpersonal trust through producing gratuitous trust-establishing mechanisms in social interactions between interlocutors whose interpersonal economic velocity becomes susceptible to needless compromise, and ii) via rallying and shaming: eventually confronting the person gossiped about with loaded statements and questions instead of first seeking the incentives-based context of the gossiped about person’s purportedly (but not yet demonstrably) costly or varied capital investment-disincentivizing speech and actions. _____ SHUNNING (vaguely, an advice post – not written as carefully, just a provisional post in its imperfect form) Shunning is a cost-imposing behavior which fails to give a fully informed accounting of why one shuns the shunned. It imposes conduct boundaries upon the shunned within which the shunned must operate to maintain relations; these boundaries are non-correspondent transaction terms upon the shunned which reinforce the shunner’s loaded, non-correspondent interpretation of events (even if in shared consensus with another). What a shunner administers an unexplained test delivered without warranty that this test is even worth taking: ‘behave and speak as I want or I will deprive you of affection, instruction, resources, and the investment of other forms of capital’. It fails to register the behavioral and speech incentives of the shunned and thereby compromises the shunner’s reality-testing in favor of his/her intuited, discounted means to pressure the shunned into appeasing to the shunner’s preferences; preferences which are demonstrably or intuitively costly for the shunned). If someone shuns you, question their value in your life before you consider even asking for the context of their shunning. They provide nothing of unique value that you couldn’t get elsewhere at a mutually understood (comparable) discount between yourself and your non-shunning interlocutor? You confirm that through the non-intuitive convenience of their shunning, you incidentally gain peace and more capital with which to love and produce for those kin and kith in your trust, who do not demonstrate the imposition of such costs as shunning upon you? You lose nothing by leaving them *after* having tried to establish a non-loaded context-seeking for their shunning — if they are even worth *that* to begin with — to no avail, perhaps while receiving an accountability-avoiding, evasive answer? Yes? Then leave them while sharing that these newfound value additions must continually incentivize your non-interaction with them. After clarifying this simply leave them to their own devices. Leave them without any animosity. Make sure that if it’s ever in your interests to rekindle dealings with them, you can do so without having the stain of a cost-imposing attack — that is, a critique not based on a criticism of someone’s alterable choices and/or virtues — inject gratuitous costs into your attempts to re-establish a connection in which the both of you can either exclusively add value to the lives of one another, according to voluntary and mutually established communicative terms which do not impose costs upon your family and friends, or choose to simply not interact in a given instance.

  • The Oath

    “[I] shall not lie, cheat, steal, impose costs upon others or the commons, nor shall I let go unpunished those who do.”

  • The Oath

    “[I] shall not lie, cheat, steal, impose costs upon others or the commons, nor shall I let go unpunished those who do.”

  • To William Kristol

    TWEETS TO WILLIAM KRISTOL Possessing Courage is not the same as possessing solutions. Conservatism and universal equal enfranchisement are incompatible. Sentiments do not arguments make. Beliefs not policy make. Moralizing not philosophy make. Counter-signaling is but weakness. Conservatism is counter to the strategy of the mass. Why? It is personally costly, meritocratic, deterministically eugenic. And because it is costly, meritocratic, deterministically eugenic, conservatives cannot truthfully advocate for it’s methods. Ergo, under democracy, conservatives lied by omission.Since truth is the source of conservatism, it could not survive. So our generation puts truth back on the table as the first cause of western success. End the 20th Century of Lies. ‪#‎NewRight‬ If democracy and movement conservatism are incompatible with truth telling, THEY CANNOT BE WESTERN VALUES. #NewRight Natural Law: Truth Telling, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Property, Family, Sovereignty, Merit, Aristocracy, Commons,Technology. Conservatives failed because they could not find a ratio- scientific argument for the dissonance between democracy and merit. Man is not moral or immoral, but rational. It is only that morality is a better investment for most. But Parasitism is rational And democracy is a vehicle for incremental recidivism from individual moral meritocracy to collective immoral parasitism. We are the #NewRight.Because we will end the century of lies. End the myth of democracy.End the myth of equality. No more lies. Conservatism = Aristocracy (Meritocracy). One must EARN the franchise through demonstrated achievements. #NewRight

  • To William Kristol

    TWEETS TO WILLIAM KRISTOL Possessing Courage is not the same as possessing solutions. Conservatism and universal equal enfranchisement are incompatible. Sentiments do not arguments make. Beliefs not policy make. Moralizing not philosophy make. Counter-signaling is but weakness. Conservatism is counter to the strategy of the mass. Why? It is personally costly, meritocratic, deterministically eugenic. And because it is costly, meritocratic, deterministically eugenic, conservatives cannot truthfully advocate for it’s methods. Ergo, under democracy, conservatives lied by omission.Since truth is the source of conservatism, it could not survive. So our generation puts truth back on the table as the first cause of western success. End the 20th Century of Lies. ‪#‎NewRight‬ If democracy and movement conservatism are incompatible with truth telling, THEY CANNOT BE WESTERN VALUES. #NewRight Natural Law: Truth Telling, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Property, Family, Sovereignty, Merit, Aristocracy, Commons,Technology. Conservatives failed because they could not find a ratio- scientific argument for the dissonance between democracy and merit. Man is not moral or immoral, but rational. It is only that morality is a better investment for most. But Parasitism is rational And democracy is a vehicle for incremental recidivism from individual moral meritocracy to collective immoral parasitism. We are the #NewRight.Because we will end the century of lies. End the myth of democracy.End the myth of equality. No more lies. Conservatism = Aristocracy (Meritocracy). One must EARN the franchise through demonstrated achievements. #NewRight

  • To The Weekly Standard

    @weeklystandard Not that we want to limit your revenue streams, or expect you to abandon them, but we are the ‪#‎NewRight‬. You failed. Sorry. @weeklystandard If it means we have to take you down rather than reform you, it’s not going to be difficult. Truth Is Enough. You’re done. @weeklystandard Trump is just the embodiment of our (militant) desire to radically change the status quo. He’s a consequence, not cause. @weeklystandard Maybe you don’t understand that every change in the method of information distribution changes the political structure. @weeklystandard You failed because you erred or lied, or both. Our mandate is to speak truthfully, morally, empirically. Truth is enough. @weeklystandard Your current deception, in your usual method, is to PERSONALIZE our rejection of the status quo, as marxists PSYCHOLOGIZE. @weeklystandard Personalizing our movement is but an attempt to avoid addressing our challenge: You failed. And harmed us doing so.#NewRight @weeklystandard No More Lies. You failed because you could not produce intellectual products resolving the Aristocratic/Democratic conflict. @weeklystandard No More Lies. Reality by Chanting only works until the empirical evidence to the contrary arrives. Evidence is in: Failure. @weeklystandard Neocons, Libertarians, Marxists: all pseudoscientific falsehoods propagated by pseudo intellectuals using new discount media.

  • To The Weekly Standard

    @weeklystandard Not that we want to limit your revenue streams, or expect you to abandon them, but we are the ‪#‎NewRight‬. You failed. Sorry. @weeklystandard If it means we have to take you down rather than reform you, it’s not going to be difficult. Truth Is Enough. You’re done. @weeklystandard Trump is just the embodiment of our (militant) desire to radically change the status quo. He’s a consequence, not cause. @weeklystandard Maybe you don’t understand that every change in the method of information distribution changes the political structure. @weeklystandard You failed because you erred or lied, or both. Our mandate is to speak truthfully, morally, empirically. Truth is enough. @weeklystandard Your current deception, in your usual method, is to PERSONALIZE our rejection of the status quo, as marxists PSYCHOLOGIZE. @weeklystandard Personalizing our movement is but an attempt to avoid addressing our challenge: You failed. And harmed us doing so.#NewRight @weeklystandard No More Lies. You failed because you could not produce intellectual products resolving the Aristocratic/Democratic conflict. @weeklystandard No More Lies. Reality by Chanting only works until the empirical evidence to the contrary arrives. Evidence is in: Failure. @weeklystandard Neocons, Libertarians, Marxists: all pseudoscientific falsehoods propagated by pseudo intellectuals using new discount media.

  • How Do You Price Normative Decline?

    HOW DO YOU PRICE NORMATIVE DECLINE? [H]elpful conversation about Ukrainian people with my friend Марта Госовська yesterday. She was able to help me understand how Russian rule turned the Ukrainian people immoral, and how far they must come before they can change. Because now, like Russia, people are taught how to take advantage not how to produce. Why they cannot organize in large numbers. Why their courts do not work. Why their politicians, bureaucrats, professors, teachers and police are corrupt. This is an example of the problem of pricing norms. What is the cost of Russian (Soviet) rule of eastern Europe? What is the cost of the marxist program? What is the cost of the 1964 immigration program? These costs are real. And not including them is practicing deceit by not fully accounting for costs. What it the cost of normative decline to the white underclass?